Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-09-04
HAWTHORNE
HIS REPLY TO ANXIOUS INQUIRER
AND THR PARALLEL COLUMNS
The Reverend Lecturer Once More Defend
ing Himself Against the Charge
Of flsgiarism-Pretty
Harsh Words.

Augusta (Ga) Chronicle, as it contains,
he SAYS, some matter in reply TO the
recentaiticle published in the Dispatch
from an Atlanta correspondent.
Editors Chronicle:
For the last week I have been en-
gagged in series of religious meetings,
and consequently have been unable TO
reply sooner to Anxious Inquirers"
second communication charging me
with plagiarism. You have not given
me bis name, and l am still in dark
ness as to the authorship of these
anonymous communications. / learn
through the Augusta Netos that a man
Ivy the name of Benet, living some
where in South Carolina, is supposed
10 be "Anxious Inquirer" l have
never heard of him before. He is said
TO have come from Scotland. | sup
pose that he has not been in our coun-
try great while.
II seems that the Augusta Ne,Os Will
vouch for "Anxious Inquirer" who
ever he may be. That is very feeble
consolation for him. every man has
his friends" Judas Iscariot had his
Benedict Arnold had his Guiteau had
his Voolfolk has his, and Anxious
Inquirer is not an exception to the
rule.
IL will take the endorsement of more
than one such newspaper as the Au-
gusta Nclrs TO satisfy sober, thinking
people that man is worthy to be trust
cd who is capable of such an attack as
"Anxious Inquirer" has made upon
me. If he is the honest and estlma-
bic man that his endorsers represent
him TO be, why did he in bis
first communication leave out the
quotation marks which l had put
around the passages taken from
DR.. Strongs book ? No one doubts
that he sought to make the impression
that | had used the extracts without
giving credit to another. The only
passage in my printed speech where
the exact language of DIR. Strong is
used without quotation marks is the
paragraph of two brief sentences be-
ginning with the words "But no one
Knows better than this class of for
eigners." "AnxiOus Inquirer" en-
deavored to make the impression upon
the readers of the Chronicle that have
used twenty.six paragraphs of "Our
Country without giving credit to any
body. Is that honesty? Would any
reminded man resort to such methods
TO accomplish his purposes
Again, my anonymous assailant says:
"If yOu leave out DR.. HawthOrne's re
marks about himself and his strange
deuunciation of our German fellow
citizens You can find nearly all the rest
Of his address, very slightly altered, in
Or. Strong's book This sentence
contains two statements which are alb
solutely false. The greater part Of my
syeoch is a discussion Of a subject to
which Dr. StrOng's book makes no al
lusioD, and there is not one thought in
1t borrowed from DIR. Strong or any
other source. anybody who either
heard or read the speech knows that
] said nothing against the Germans as
people. l denounced only that ele-
meut OF our foreign population that IS
seeking to supplant Christianity with
Socialism. No one knows this better
than "Anxious Inquirer, " and yet he
sticks to his slandeTOus assertion.
He desires to know why l did not
mention DIR. StroDP's name instead OF
abiding to him as " one of the calmest
and most conservative thinkers" !
will give him my reason. By one chap
ter in "Our Country" DR.. Strong had
greatly offended certain denomination
of Christians which is very largely re-
presented in Augusta. | knew that the
facts which ! presented in regard to
Socialism would have less weight with
these people than they should have if
they were asserted upon the authority
Of Or. Strong.
Did / intend to deceive the publie?
That is a question which, | think, | can
help the public to settle. Did | intend
to deceive my Augusta audience? Let
us see. began my statement of facts
by distinct and unequivocal reference
to the "calm and conservative thinker
from whom they were taken. That
much appears in print One third OF
my speech was crfcmpOrc, and does
not appear in the ChrOaiclc's report.
In reading the quotations from DIR.
Strong's book i paused more than once
to say that they were the utterances of
a distinguished writer who had made
specially Of the subject. l did this not
only to avoid the appearance of plagia-
ris1n, but to add to the force of each
statement.
In all this what is there to support
the charge that l intended to deceive
nv audience Row can any man re-
cQncile the repeated acknowledgment
of my indebtedness for the facts which
used with the idea Of an intention to
deceive?
Did intend to deceive the readers
Of the Chronicle? If / did, how will
Won explain the fact that wherever |
used the words OF DR.. Strong or any
other man put them within quotation
marks? How could anybody with eyes,
and knowing the meaning Of quotation
marks, he deceived p?
Wherever l made use of facts and
ideas in DR.. Strong's book, without APP
propriating his language, ! did not use
quotation marks. Is that legitimate ?
Not less than twenty literary men with
in the last two weeks have said to me
cit is perfectly legitimate. Mr.. Carl
ton Mccarthy, OF Richmond, Va, one
of the most popular writers Of the South,
says: "In a speech on missions used
DR.. Strong's ideas and facts without
making the least reference to him." Is
there a public speaker in the world who
is accustomed TO give credit for every
thought and fact gathered from other
men? Does my anonymous slanderer
always do it? j..
am indebted TO gifted member OF
the Atlanta bar, with whom have only
a slight personal acquaintance, for the
following statement
"The question resolves itself into
this What was your intention? The
intent settles the matter regardless of
facts, here as in tar. or elsewhere. In
the absence Of expressed intent facts
decide. What DO they say here? The
very commencement of the address is
disclaimer Of any intention to appro-
pirate anything without credit This
is fact which is upon the face OF the
record. Because DR.. Strong's name
does not appear in the credit given has
no bearing on the question OF plagia-
rism. The moment credit is given to